Talk:Particles
Why Include 'Real' Particles at All? Why make Memory Alpha pages at all for particles that actually exist (or are thought to exist, outside of Star Trek)? For these, simply link to their respective articles on Wikipedia(!!!). I would gladly start doing that, but I shouldn't be projecting my will like that as only a single individual; I need the community to voice some support for this idea! (posted by anon user 4.178.51.142) :I think adding external references in the articles in question is a great idea. But the artcles have enough reason to exist. I could point out a few even more dubious articles. They show episodes featuring the particles, and how, and that is enough. But I do encourage you to add those references anyway! -- Redge 00:37, 1 Aug 2004 (CEST) : I would not support such an idea for three reasons: :#Redirects to external wiki sites cause database problems, and are almost impossible to access through normal means. :#Archivists would be unable to edit the page in tune with the POV of this wiki. :#Such action would prevent any reference to occurances and uses of said particles in the Star Trek universe, which is the purpose of this wiki. Adding a link to the Wikipedia articles as a See also is fine, but not a wholesale handing off of content "responsibility". -- Michael Warren 00:43, 1 Aug 2004 (CEST) :::I think he was not suggesting redirects to external sites, but links to Wikipedia pages from this List in stead of links to articles here. I do not agree, mainly because of the 3rd reason you gave, and suggested placing those external links in the articles instead. I think you'd agree that there's no harm in simply placing an external link to wikipedia articles in the articles on particles here at MA? It will only serve to provide more information. -- Redge 01:18, 1 Aug 2004 (CEST) New article structure these divisions might not be necessary, if each one is only going to have one or two particles listed. this is going to make if more daunting to use this list to find a certain particle, if you are uninformed about weak nuclear force or any subgroup and i dislike MA as a science primer rather than a Trek resource. Imaginary Trek particles have a perfectly valid place listed besides their 'real' counterparts. (likewise, the particles that were NEVER mentioned on Trek? DUMP THEM!) --Captain Mike K. Bartel 18:05, 13 Jun 2004 (CEST) :Definitely agree. Make it a simple, alphabetically sorted list to remove overhead (more sections than content), guesswork (from the edit summary: "where to put Star Trek's imaginairy particles?") 'non-Trek' content and some style issues (section headers should not be links). -- Cid Highwind 18:39, 13 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::Got it! I honestly don't know which of these particles is mentioned in Star Trek en which isn't. Guess someone will have to watch each and every episode for mention of particles. In the middle of all that technobable, they won't stick out. It'll have to be one with a good knowledge of elementary physics. -- Redge 19:19, 14 Jun 2004 (CEST) Dead link During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case! If the dead link is fixed, please also remove this comment. * http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/quickref/particles1.htm ** In Element on Tue Mar 14 21:49:52 2006, 404 Not Found ** In Element on Sun May 07 21:03:13 2006, 404 Not Found ** In Particles on Sun May 07 22:04:52 2006, 404 Not Found --HighwindBot 20:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Quantity of particles? In my research I've come accross about 64 Atomic particles and about 101 molecules in the trekiverse as well as some fundamental(sub-atomic) particles, the bulk of all of these link back to Memory Alpha Wiki. Just a guess but I would say this list is short. I take it from mild observation that not all the particles are categorized. Is this particles list automated from the "category" listed at the bottom of each page? if so why are we short? Darren Hensley 22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)